Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Eric
Posts: 4
Joined: July 28th, 2014, 1:37 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Eric » August 5th, 2014, 12:04 am

Here are some points I want to share to put in my 2 cents on what has been discussed on this topic. I am not going to quote anybody as I believe it tends to aggravate the person quoted and leads to arguments that take away from the benefits of an open discussion. Bear with me as I am going to cover several different issues that have been discussed.

Lets get realistic with all these "user fees" that are being talked about. A hunting license is a user fee, so is a fishing license, so is a park permit. I do not like the term "consumer fee", as it implies success. Anyone who has hunted or fished knows that success is far from guaranteed. The only way I am guaranteed to get meat is to go to the grocery store and pay a "consumer fee".

No license is required to herp on private property, permission to be on that private property is required. Without permission you are trespassing and liable to be shot by the landowner (just kidding but Texas landowners would shoot tresspassers if they could legally).

The big bad snake hunters that hunt rattlesnakes for round-ups are required to have a hunting license for private property. They are also not allowed to road cruise and I'm sure they are cited just the same as herpers for doing so. They could collect by non-lethal means from the unpaved public ROW under the reptile and amphibian collection stamp as well. The view I have on the killing of rattlesnakes is that humans have been killing rattlesnakes without regard for anything but their elimination since humans and rattlesnakes have co-existed. Rattlesnakes are still around in the numbers needed to have a round-up where they are killed in the thousands ever year. Rattlesnakes also cause problems for livestock. While the cases of a rattlesnake killing a horse or cow are few and far between, one occurrence of that happening is enough to develop a serious hate for rattlesnakes by landowners and ranchers. I don't agree or disagree with the killing of rattlesnakes nor do I have the ability to do anything about its practice.

Herping where the specimen is handled is prohibited on most if not all State and National Parks. Best leave it alone and just take the photo. Even indian artifacts are prohibited from being collected. State and National Parks are available to the public for enjoyment and recreation, taking anything from the park other than photos degrades the pristine environment that future or repeat visitors wish to experience. Whether you think any one will miss a snake or arrowhead that was once there or not, you are making a negative impact.

When a person buys a license they usually have a interest in what the license pertains to. The proceeds from the license go to benefit the type of activity it allows. Just like buying a duck stamp, the proceeds go to wetland conservation. If the Game Wardens in West Texas are enforcing the laws regarding to herping from the public right-of-way then the money generated by the sales of hunting licenses/herping stamps is being used for the conservation of herps. Enforcement of conservation laws IS part of the practice of conservation!

If a person does not get checked by a Game Warden while herping then good on them for being right. If someone wishes to use a resource (either hunting, fishing, or recreating in a park) but does not pay the user fee, then they are stealing or otherwise not providing to the future enjoyment of the resource. If they don't get caught they get away with it typically. Enforcement ensuring that everyone has the right license or permit is not feasible or practical.

Integrity is good value to have, doing the right thing even if nobody is around to see you do it. There will always be those in society who lack this trait.

No one can be forced to buy a license. If they care or wish to partake in the type of activity the license permits most people typically buy a license, not all though. The fact of someone possessing a license does guarantee that the person is going to abide by the law. The license allows one to recreate but there are other laws that one must follow while operating under that license. Again if one really cares about conservation they usually abide by the laws. Those laws can be broken easily by mistake and on purpose.

It is law enforcement's job to determine the seriousness of the offense and how to handle it. Asking for standardized enforcement is a dangerous proposal. Taking away officer discretion, putting everything in a black and white category, is a bad decision. It is impossible to put every single situation an officer may encounter in the black or white. This takes away the ability for the officer to use common sense and reason.

Game Wardens/Park Rangers and similar types of LEO's are different than most other law enforcement, they WANT people to be involved in the acts that they have the main responsibility of enforcing. Every lawful stop made by a State Trooper is caused by someone who has violated the law. When a Sheriffs Deputy responds to a domestic disturbance, someone has likely broken the law. When a Game Warden first makes contact with a hunter, unless they watched the hunter do something unlawful, there is no reason to treat the person as if they have broken a law until it has been found that they have. It would be a conflict of interest to treat every hunter, fisherman, or hiker as if they were criminals. That being said, when a hunter, fisherman, or hiker HAS broken a law then it must be addressed.

A note about Border Patrol. They are federal customs and immigration officers, not state peace officers. They have no responsibilities or capabilities to regulate herpers as long as they are not also illegal immigrants. Maybe this is why they are regarded as the most professional law enforcement encountered by herpers.

Most people like law enforcement unless they are the subject of law enforcement's attention. I have always liked cops until I was getting a ticket. Well, shame on me for speeding.

There is a grey spot in the law if only taking photographs. I think it would be to a photographers benefit to be able to briefly manipulate the snake to take a worthwhile photograph. So buying a license would behoove them to have. Also, as mentioned, it benefits the activity they are involved in as it is being enforced. On the other hand, if you locate a snake on the road at night then wait for it to get to the unpaved portion of the public ROW to photograph it, it has become off limits for manipulation for the photograph, due to its locating it by using artificial light from a motor vehicle.

If you are only taking photographs and do not wish to contribute monetarily to TPWD for herp conservation, then ONLY take photographs. If you wish to temporarily handle or possibly collect, then buy the license and stamp, but follow the laws that apply to operating under that license and stamp.

I think the fact of the matter is to have integrity and follow the law. If you are caught in violation of the law then don't be a butt and own up to it. Honesty will get you a whole lot further with Game Wardens than lying will.

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Aaron » August 5th, 2014, 7:42 pm

"On the other hand, if you locate a snake on the road at night then wait for it to get to the unpaved portion of the public ROW to photograph it, it has become off limits for manipulation for the photograph, due to its locating it by using artificial light from a motor vehicle."

This is contrary to what a warden told a friend of mine in June. My friend was stopped by a warden and was told as long as he waits for the snake to cross the road on it's own it's fair game. Of course I understand the warden could have been wrong, this wouldn't be the first time I have heard conflicting information from a warden. If anybody has the actual text of the law, please post it.

User avatar
Eric
Posts: 4
Joined: July 28th, 2014, 1:37 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Eric » August 5th, 2014, 8:18 pm

As mentioned by the Game Warden, "Wardens have a lot of discretion". Many Wardens have different interpretations of the law as far as what is ok with them in their area they are assigned to work. That was him using his discretion saying HE is ok with that practice. Sounds like Game Wardens in West Texas are a little more strict on the matter and trying to cut out the road cruisers that seem to have a problem obeying the laws. Where was your friend at in the state when he encountered this Warden? If it was me I would abide by what the local Warden is ok with. If you don't know, Game Wardens phone numbers for the counties they work are public information and can be looked up on the TPWD Website. A phone call to the local Warden(s) asking for information would provide you with what the standard is for that area/Warden. A courtesy call letting the Wardens know you will be in the area is also a nice thing to do and shows you have nothing to hide.

Here is the link for the Texas Game Warden Contact List, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us, click the Game Warden bar at the top and the drop down list pops up. Select County.

The law can be found on this link. The one applying to herping is 62.0031.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PW.62.htm

I found this violation list while looking for the law. It will give some insight into what violations a Warden can write. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/warden/wildlife. Violations 5016, 5017, 5019, 5020, and 5021 appear to apply to herpers operating under the Reptile and Amphibian Stamp.

After reading all the laws and violation codes thoroughly, I can easily see how a Warden could articulate a violation if they witnessed someone cruise the road, locate a snake on the road with the vehicle head lights (artificial light) then patiently wait until the snake slithered off the road, then handle the snake. They might even be able to get you for hunt from public roadway as well as hunt with artificial light from a motor vehicle. Never know unless you do your homework and figure out what will and won't get you in trouble in the area you wish to herp. Hope that helps!

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by chris_mcmartin » August 6th, 2014, 3:51 am

Gerry,

Does it occur to you that maybe you have to keep explaining exactly what you mean because you're NOT as clear as you think you are?

To me, it boils down to this:

You think everyone should pay something to help manage/conserve nature/wildlife. To a large extent, they do.
You think everyone who has any interaction with nature/wildlife should pay something extra. This is where our disagreement is, because we don't agree on what constitutes interaction, and what the nature of that interaction must be in order for someone to feel obligated (or be compelled) to pay.

You think I'm desperately trying to find something that'll "stick" to make my point. I think I'm merely providing myriad reasons why your broad definition of interaction, use, intent, etc. means your ideal outcome is a bad idea.

We disagree. That's all. As I've said, you have made me think about these things, though, and ideally we've both made others think about them as well.


But I DO have a problem with this:
gbin wrote:
Perhaps. The particular page DOES say it hasn't been updated since July 22nd of this year. ;) Does your associate speak with the authority of the park? Because if so, he/she should probably notify the webmaster of the error.
I'll suggest it. In any event, you're welcome to believe me or not, as always. If you think back on our long association online, though, I think you'll realize that I'm not very fond of dishonesty in argument or anywhere else.
This sounds like a thinly-veiled accusation of lying. If you're concerned that I didn't cite my source, it is the Cedar Breaks official National Park Service page: http://www.nps.gov/cebr/planyourvisit/f ... ations.htm.
Cedar Breaks Individual Fee: $4 Per Person
Valid for seven days, this fee is for visitors, age 16 or older, entering the park. Children age 15 and under are free. This fee is paid at the entrance station at Point Supreme.
The date of last update is in small print at the very bottom-right of the page. There is no discussion of "travelers passing through the park do not have to pay the fee." If you're entering the park (crossing the boundary, regardless of intent), you must pay. Your associate may say intent plays a role in whether they enforce their own rule, but a visitor to the area would read this and figure they have to pay regardless of intent.

In this way, it's similar to herping laws (to bring the discussion back on topic). If you have no idea about the law/rule/regulation, you're apparently off the hook--contradicting the time-honored mantra, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." By that, I mean the only people who will know that moving a turtle off the road (or running them over) is illegal are those who probably have a heightened awareness/interest of herps (i.e. those who bother to look up the regulations).

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 6th, 2014, 5:16 am

You just keep churning the same nonsense back to the surface, Chris. :roll:
chris_mcmartin wrote:You think everyone should pay something to help manage/conserve nature/wildlife. To a large extent, they do.
You think everyone who has any interaction with nature/wildlife should pay something extra. This is where our disagreement is, because we don't agree on what constitutes interaction, and what the nature of that interaction must be in order for someone to feel obligated (or be compelled) to pay.

You think I'm desperately trying to find something that'll "stick" to make my point. I think I'm merely providing myriad reasons why your broad definition of interaction, use, intent, etc. means your ideal outcome is a bad idea.

We disagree. That's all...
No, that's not all. For whatever reason (and I've acknowledged more than once that it may simply be that I'm not the person to explain things to you), you do indeed keep revising my viewpoint and then addressing your revision rather than addressing what I've actually said. You did it again above.

I never said and never meant that I thought "everyone who has any interaction with nature/wildlife should pay something extra." I'm not the one trying to force an absurdly "broad definition of interaction, use, intent, etc." into this discussion. You are. I have in fact repeatedly taken pains to point out to you how my view differs from what you claim it to be. As I said, I've spoken more generally at times, but mostly I've specifically addressed hunting because it's most relevant to this thread: Snapping a picture of a snake you've just happened upon while out and about is interacting with nature, but you weren't hunting for it so I don't think you should need a hunting license. Snapping a picture of a snake you found while specifically hunting (= seeking, pursuing, attempting to find, etc., regardless of whether the animal is harvested) for herps is a decidedly different kind of interaction with nature, a quite specific and intentional use of nature, and you should need a hunting license for it. People can pretend otherwise to authorities and even to themselves if they're so inclined, but in truth they know what their intent is, they know whether they're out hunting for something or just came upon it by accident.

I can see how you might not understand me perfectly, or maybe not even particularly well, but why doesn't any of what I'm saying to you seem to sink in? I'm increasingly compelled to believe it's because you're actively (even if unconsciously) resisting it, as an alternative to not being able to address what I'm really saying and/or a desire not to change your own view.
chris_mcmartin wrote:But I DO have a problem with this:
gbin wrote:
Perhaps. The particular page DOES say it hasn't been updated since July 22nd of this year. ;) Does your associate speak with the authority of the park? Because if so, he/she should probably notify the webmaster of the error.
I'll suggest it. In any event, you're welcome to believe me or not, as always. If you think back on our long association online, though, I think you'll realize that I'm not very fond of dishonesty in argument or anywhere else.
This sounds like a thinly-veiled accusation of lying. If you're concerned that I didn't cite my source, it is the Cedar Breaks official National Park Service page: http://www.nps.gov/cebr/planyourvisit/f ... ations.htm.
You're misreading me. In response to my saying how things work in Cedar Breaks you visited their website and reported here that you found information to the contrary of what I said. I didn't say "Perhaps" in response; I immediately and unquestioningly accepted what you said and responded to it by saying that it must be out of date or simply wrong, and I firmly repeated the way things actually are in the park as opposed to what might be found on the park's website. You responded to me with "Perhaps." That certainly sounded to me like a suggestion that I may be lying about how things actually are there. But rather than get into a fight with you about it, I simply emphasized to you that you're free to believe me or not, and also pointed out to you that from our long online association you should also already know that I have a strong aversion to such misbehavior.

Do you really want to continue this idiotic back-and-forth, apparently piling misunderstanding (or worse) upon misunderstanding (or worse)? As I said, it would be different if you were addressing the things I've actually said, but you're not. I tell you what, why don't you figure out and explain to me what exactly you hoped to accomplish in this discussion with the following kind of garbage, and say something to show me that you finally recognize at least some difference between my view and what you've been representing as my view? Maybe then we'll engage again, but otherwise I really don't see any point.
chris_mcmartin wrote:... How much would such a person need to pay? A quarter for a cell phone pic, a dollar for using an SLR, more if there's a grizzly bear in frame? They didn't use the visitor center, or the restroom, or maybe even a "scenic turnout."
:roll:

Gerry

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Aaron » August 6th, 2014, 10:36 am

Eric, I concur. I was thinking the law said "hunt" from a vehicle, which would require intent. What the law actually says is "locate" which requires no intent.

"(e) A person may not use an artificial light from a motor vehicle in locating, capturing, or attempting to capture a reptile or amphibian under Subsection (c)."

Thank you for providing those links which cleared up my confusion.

The place where my friend was stopped was on River Rd.(FM 170). He was walking at the time and he did have a license and did not try to deny he was hunting.

User avatar
Eric
Posts: 4
Joined: July 28th, 2014, 1:37 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Eric » August 6th, 2014, 12:21 pm

Aaron, I bet if one was walking a cut or the ditch and noticed a snake on the road. Then waited until the snake slithered off the road to capture it they would be OK. The way the law is written they are not in a vehicle while using artificial light. Just don't run out on the road and get it!

If a car is coming and there is a snake or turtle in the road you are waiting on. I don't think there would be any problem flagging that car down before it gets to the animal and asking if they would please go around it due to the fact that you were interested in it. Just because the law says that you are not able to move it off the road doesn't mean you have to sit there and watch it get smooshed! Think outside the box.

A word of warning with that being said, the Trans-Pecos and Texas/Mexican border is a hot area for the smuggling of drugs and persons. Might get more than you bargained for if you flag down the wrong person! Just something to think about. There was a Border Patrolman murdered in South Texas last week while fishing along the Rio Grand and in the 90's there were river rafters ambushed and one killed (two injured) near the Colorado Canyon/Panther Canyon area in Presidio County. Things like that do happen, just not real frequently. I don't mean to scare anyone but if you aren't thinking about stuff like that while you are out herping you are setting yourself up for failure.

If you decide to be armed just make sure you are doing it legally. Be aware of Texas law when visiting from out of state.

User avatar
infidel
Posts: 249
Joined: July 3rd, 2010, 6:24 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by infidel » August 6th, 2014, 1:45 pm

Image

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 6th, 2014, 2:22 pm

infidel wrote:Image
:lol:

That's long been my favorite, infidel! Thanks for concluding the pointless debate (I sure as heck hope it's finally concluded, anyway... :? ) on a fun note! :thumb:

Gerry

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by chris_mcmartin » August 7th, 2014, 10:49 am

gbin wrote:Thanks for concluding the pointless debate (I sure as heck hope it's finally concluded, anyway... :? ) on a fun note! :thumb:
I'm all about fun, and I enjoy that cartoon as well (and had that feeling come over me numerous times throughout this discussion), but I emphatically do not find this debate pointless.

Regardless of whether you (Gerry) or anyone else is getting anything out of it, I still am. As I've previously said, it has given me additional viewpoints to consider and I am still reflecting on both those additional viewpoints as well as my own.

Gerry, what seems to you to be my "mischaracterization" of your position is my attempt to employ a sort of "active listening" via written discussion (admittedly hard to do). You keep telling me how the way I perceive your position is not how you meant for it to come across at all. That is OK. I'm going to try again, because this is important to me to get right, as it informs several related discussions which may be in my future (not necessarily here on FHF).

Gerry, your primary focus is on the intent of the individual, and you want it to be simplified as a binary proposition: "The individual either intends to interact with nature [in one or more varied ways] or they don't, but they alone know what their true intent is and should pay extra accordingly."

I am OK with that perspective; however, I think it is impractical.

As I continue to try to better whittle down the problems I have with that perspective, it is not only that I think it is impractical, it is because my perspective could be simplified as a binary proposition as well: "Either a person is following the law, or they are not--regardless of intent."

I freely admit that this can be viewed as problematic by someone like Gerry (or Eric, who has graciously chimed in), because it eliminates the intent component--and therefore, discretion of the law-enforcement agent charged with applying his/her best judgment as to whether the person involved is on the up-and-up or not. Call it adherence to "rule of law" to a fault, on my part. ;)

I think the two points of view are largely irreconcilable, which is why I think the discussion itself is important where others may not. But the disparity in those perspectives shouldn't just be ignored, because they factor into the calculus of possible amendments to existing legislation, and may help illuminate why people for or against such proposed changes either may not see eye to eye or even see the need for the change.

There is probably somewhat of a "middle ground" that could be reached...for me it would entail more carefully constructing statutes going forward, to eliminate ambiguity (or the need to question someone's intent). Such laws would admittedly mean more people may "get away with" something--a kid takes a turtle home as opposed to moving off the road, for example--and that is OK with me, because they would be operating within the parameters of such a law, and intent wouldn't be called into question.

For others, the middle ground would entail something a little different (better addressing the "intent" component), and that is where my continued wrestling with the practical application of those ideals comes into play.


Is that any better/clearer/more helpful to anyone? As I continue to ponder this, I've personally found it helpful just typing it out. I haven't gone back and reread ANY of the thread, so I may have missed some finer points that I still haven't acknowledged...Gerry, if I've mischaracterized your position yet again, I'm sure you'll let me know. :beer:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 7th, 2014, 1:18 pm

chris_mcmartin wrote:
gbin wrote:Thanks for concluding the pointless debate (I sure as heck hope it's finally concluded, anyway... :? ) on a fun note! :thumb:
I'm all about fun, and I enjoy that cartoon as well (and had that feeling come over me numerous times throughout this discussion), but I emphatically do not find this debate pointless.
Let me be specific: It is the exchange with you and cbernz about what my view is and is not, along with whatever arguments the two of you have offered based on your misreading of my view, that I deem pointless debate. Even those didn't necessarily start out as such, but certainly achieved that status through your many, unchanging iterations. Other than that nonsense I think this thread is worthwhile, including because of my contributions.

I believe I understand active listening, indeed I often employ the technique myself when communication is difficult, and although that might be what you've been attempting I don't see it at all as what you've been doing. In active listening, the idea behind your providing your take on my view isn't for it to act as a platform from which you can springboard to an endless stream of arguments that you can come up with based on your take on my view, it's to allow me to give you feedback on whether or not you have my view correctly (which I have done, ad nauseam) and for you to modify your take on my view accordingly so that the conversation can proceed on a proper footing. Through extensive back-and-forth between us you showed no inclination or ability to do the latter, and instead just kept trying to force your mischaracterization of my view upon me - along with that endless stream of arguments based upon it. So pointless it was, indeed.
chris_mcmartin wrote:Gerry, your primary focus is on the intent of the individual, and you want it to be simplified as a binary proposition: "The individual either intends to interact with nature [in one or more varied ways] or they don't, but they alone know what their true intent is and should pay extra accordingly."

I am OK with that perspective; however, I think it is impractical.
They might be the only ones who know their true intent (what I've actually said - repeatedly - is that at least they know their true intent even if others don't, which isn't really the same), but others can often perceive, gather evidence and otherwise act on it, too. You personally might deem it impractical, but our legal system regularly counts on this fact in deciding who to charge, what to charge them with and how to prosecute the case against them for violating all kinds of laws, most definitely including hunting laws. I'm no lawyer, but I know this much.

I for one am very glad this is the case, partly for the flexibility it gives LE in dealing with whatever circumstances confront them, as Eric discussed, and partly because voluntary compliance on the one hand and being caught red-handed on the other would by themselves allow too many scofflaws to get away with their misbehavior. If a law relies on intent (as so many do) and a case can be built on intent then I definitely want that avenue available for the scofflaws' prosecution.

You still haven't given me any feedback whatsoever to indicate that you understand I haven't been talking about trying to assess user fees for any and all interactions people might have with nature. I've actually been talking about specific, definable kinds of interactions, most of which already have user fees in place at one level/in one location or another. (And user fees for these specific, definable kinds of interactions with nature has actually been my primary focus, by the way.) In particular I've been talking about the example of herp hunting, as it's most relevant to this thread in this internet forum. Do you get any of that, yet?

You also haven't yet offered any explanation for the "a quarter for a cell phone pic, a dollar for using an SLR, more if there's a grizzly bear in the frame" garbage and its like. Do you really think that user fees for public resources aren't justified if a person arguing for them in an internet forum doesn't specify exactly how much each user should pay for every conceivable kind of use, as this suggests? Were you just expressing sarcasm, or frustration? Or were just trying to waste (more of) my time? Yes, I'm seriously asking - and not for the first time.

Gerry

User avatar
Eric
Posts: 4
Joined: July 28th, 2014, 1:37 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Eric » August 7th, 2014, 10:32 pm

If looking at intent of a herper during a Game Warden check. It is a strange situation to see someone wearing a reflective vest and headlamp while walking the unpaved public ROW but not having the proper licenses due to "only taking photographs". They may just well be only taking photographs? Their intent is clearly to find herps. Now they better stick to in-situ style photography.

While someone driving down the road finds some flora or fauna they wish to photograph does not need a license of any sort to stop and photograph it. That's the way it should be too. With PWC 62.0031 being so vague when it comes to photography of herps. The issue if someone needs a license to look for herps from the public ROW if only photographing needs to be assessed by a lawyer with expertise on game laws. A hunting license and reptile/amphibian stamp clearly allows for one to handle and collect herps from unpaved public ROW. Is it possible to articulate that a hunting license and stamp are required to utilize the unpaved public ROW for herping? Very much a grey zone as we know, depends what terminology they are using and what legal definitions are in place. While it is hunting to collect or handle (or the attempt of) snakes. Is it hunting to look for snakes to photograph with out handling? The way the law is written it is an enforcement dilemma.

It would make sense and be easier to enforce if a license was required to use the unpaved public ROW for any in depth herping activity. Now I think if a Game Warden search for wildlife resources of the herper's vehicle turned up pillow cases, bags, containers, and snake hooks (all equipment commonly used to handle and/or collect snakes) then the intent is not only to photograph herps but catch one if the right one is found. Possession of a snake in the vehicle would be even better proof of intent, although being able to prove where it was caught could be troublesome but can be found out with proper interview techniques.

Comparing that to hunters of a more traditional type, ones that use tools, if a rifle, shotgun, trap, or bow, is present then for a Game Warden that is easy to articulate that they are hunting. A citation is easily wrote with intent proved that they were hunting and no hunting license was presentable for inspection. Now if we switch to fishing (whether they are keeping fish or just catch and release, it does not matter) if a Warden witnesses them with a fishing device in the water then the person is asked to present a fishing license. Pretty cut and clear with hunters and fishermen. Given that possession of a firearm alone is not intent to hunt as they are used for self defense. More facts are needed to articulate that some one is hunting, is it season, is this firearm type commonly used during this season, do they have camo on, and location of person when contacted. Fairly common sense stuff there. Possession of merely a fishing pole is not good reasonable suspicion to ask for a license. Better to see them with it casted out in the water.

Herping is a whole different animal due to that it does not fit into traditional fishing or hunting categories.

Chris and Gerry, maybe this will help y'll out with your conversation. As far as whether people have the right license/permit and how much they are charged for that license. I think the license fees are where they need to be for what the license allows one to do. It is very much an honor system. I would bet that very few in comparison to the total number of people that use a resource (animal or park) actually get checked for that license or permit. That means that many get away with illegally taking a resource, not all though. Now if someone has to go through a gate requiring a fee paid or is "checked at the door" then it is much harder to get away with it. This applies to many things in life, movie theaters, taxes, parking lots, etc. There are systems in place to make sure people pay their dues, but there are still people that slip through the cracks and do so on purpose. The challenge is catching them!

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Aaron » August 8th, 2014, 8:34 am

I think most of the time possesion of a gun indicates hunting it is withiin specific areas, such as a park or national forest, where they can make it illegal to carry a gun. If people are hunting on the road or in other areas where gun possesion cannot legally indicate hunting, a warden encounters the exact same dilemma as he does with herpers in that he must see the hunter actually shoot or attempt to shoot something. It's much more practical and enforceable for a warden to wait until he sees a person pick up a herp before writing a ticket. And since the majority of herp photographers in fact do pick up the herps they photograph it is really more a matter of wardens needing to put in the time to build better cases by waiting to see people pick up herps.

User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2308
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by BillMcGighan » August 8th, 2014, 2:03 pm

I have high respect for the majority of wildlife LEOs. They spend long hours, eaten by mosquitoes, checking armed hunters (sometimes drunk) in remote locations, etc., etc.

For folks who feel indignant that a state trooper or sheriff has questioned them at 2AM in the morning and didn’t appreciate that they swerved over the line to save a herp, you might want to consider that earlier that evening, that same deputy may have faced and talked down a drunk, irate husband with a shotgun, had a shootout with some gangbangers robbing a convenience store, or pulled a crushed 8 year old little girl out from under a wrecked car and cried as she bled out. (Or, maybe, even saved a snake or two him/herself!)

Our passion is just a piss-ant in the spectrum of humanity management they have to face.


I used to brag on Texas herp laws in that they managed the herps, essentially like game, with bag limits, had biologists studying the animals, suggesting controls, and collecting money for a license, etc. And why not?
Most of TX seems to be a model of a renewable herp wildlife resource, because so few roads intersect large expanses of prime habitat.


All that said….. Enforcement of the laws and the laws themselves are two separate issues. It is the laws and the folks who wrote the laws with all their ambiguity who should be scrutinized.



I have to say that, starting in 1982, I made 4-6 herp trips per year to west and south Texas, staying in hotels, with rental cars, eating in restaurants, ($$), but, when the ROW law kicked in, I stopped making those trips to TX and stop only if I’m passing through to farther western states. Any money I spend now goes to NM and AZ.


I can’t help but wonder what was the real motivation for the law?

Was it the ranchers who didn’t like herpers snooping around, possibly rustling cattle?
Was it just a vendetta by a badge heavy who reached his “Peter Principle” fulfillment?
Was it traffic controls who frown on our driving habits?

Or?

Last time I drove on River Rd. stopped by several agencies, and aware of their radio surveillance, I couldn’t help but wonder if federal homeland security put pressure on the state to hopefully get rid of those nuisance herpers along the border zones?



PS: an old joke worth resurrecting:

A non-herper woman travels with her herper husband to west Texas.
While he’s sleeping in the camper in the daytime, resting for his nightly herping activity, she drives 20 miles to the grocery store. On the way she hears a tire thumping and pulls over coincidentally next to a cut.
.
Being a resourceful woman, she unloads the back of the SUV to get the jack, successfully changes her tire, and is about to load all back into the vehicle when a game warden pulls up.
.
The wildlife officer asks her what she is doing to which she replies "fixing my tire".
The officer looks at the contents of her SUV and sees snake hooks, tongs, and bags.

The LEO then informs her that he is charging her for illegal “herping on a ROW” and writing her a ticket.

The woman says indignantly, “I’m not herping.”
The warden replies "well you have the equipment, opportunity, and place".

The lady takes the ticket and smiles and says "OK, just so you know. I will be charging you with attempted rape when I get to town at the police station."
The Wildlife officer says indignantly, "I didn’t rape you. I didn’t even touch you!"

The woman replies "but you have the equipment, opportunity, and place."

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Aaron » August 8th, 2014, 7:40 pm

"I can’t help but wonder what was the real motivation for the law?"

Someone in TPWD asked some politicians to make the roadban because out of state herpers were coming to TX and collecting reptiles to sell outside of TX. Of course the vast majority of herpers were not doing this but that is what I was told when I spoke with one of the Senator's aids way back in 2006.

User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2308
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by BillMcGighan » August 9th, 2014, 4:13 am

Of course the vast majority of herpers were not doing this
I think, Aaron, of the dozens of herpers I met over the years on those lonely roads, I can count the commercial collectors on one hand, and only 2 were from out of state.

All the rest were folks were like us, hobbyist and ologists alike, not involved in a destructive activity and had no interest in anything illegal. Like responsible hunters and fishing persons, many of us report real illegal activities when we feel like we're getting an even break!

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 9th, 2014, 6:08 am

BillMcGighan wrote:The lady takes the ticket and smiles and says "OK, just so you know. I will be charging you with attempted rape when I get to town at the police station."
The Wildlife officer says indignantly, "I didn’t rape you. I didn’t even touch you!"

The woman replies "but you have the equipment, opportunity, and place."
And had she a penile plethysmograph with her, she could also have gathered evidence on intent. ;)
Aaron wrote:"I can’t help but wonder what was the real motivation for the law?"

Someone in TPWD asked some politicians to make the roadban because out of state herpers were coming to TX and collecting reptiles to sell outside of TX. Of course the vast majority of herpers were not doing this but that is what I was told when I spoke with one of the Senator's aids way back in 2006.
Has anyone ever thought of doing a proper job of researching this subject, at least so far as can be done, and writing up for publication a detailed story of how this law came to be? It would certainly be an interesting read, and might prove quite useful, too, both in shedding light on some things certain folks would feel embarrassed about and encouraging them and/or others to work on improving the situation. Especially if the story concluded with a solid portrayal of how the law has done more harm (e.g. to the economics of some small West TX towns) than good. I feel sure Herp Nation would eagerly publish it, but maybe something more mainstream would, too; heck, if it's researched and written well enough, this seems like just the kind of oddball article about official injustice that Texas Monthly likes to publish - and you can be sure that would get the attention of the folks in Austin. Just bear in mind that a broader audience won't care a bit about herps or herpers, but especially in TX they can be prompted to care a lot about the government restricting folks' rights and liberties, and even more about government interfering with good, old, American capitalism.

Gerry

User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 11:28 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by cbernz » August 9th, 2014, 10:36 am

gbin wrote:I have to admit that I've no sympathy whatsoever for folks who complain that all they want to do is take photographs (so they shouldn't have to have a license...). If one is pointedly making use of a resource and it's a resource that is or should be managed (and in my opinion that includes all wildlife that people target for recreational activities), then it seems only appropriate to me that one pay a user fee, i.e. in this case buy a license. I don't care whether one is hunting the animals for the cook pot, collecting them for pets, photographing them for keepsakes or documentation or just watching them for entertainment and education.
I'm going to pointedly make use of my internet resource to ask you a serious question, without focusing too much on the outcome of my hunt (which could be a serious answer, or another long-winded screed about my egregious mis-reading of internet history). When you wrote the above statement, did you intend to start a discussion on how most people (birders, herpers, governments) use the wrong definition of hunting when deciding what activities to license, or was it to start a discussion on how to actually implement the view that you are advocating? Most of what you call "nonsense" has been largely squabbling over semantics, and I'm frankly not interested anymore in what is and isn't hunting and why. I am legitimately curious, however, to know more specifically what you mean by "pay a user fee" or "buy a license." Would you have birders buy a birding license when they bought a field guide or a pair of binoculars? Would there be a sort of umbrella "naturalist's license" that would essentially obviate the need for herp stamps and other specific permits? Do you have any thoughts on enforcement, beyond repeating the importance of voluntary compliance?

If you feel like answering, that's great, but if you feel like telling me some more about how wrong you think I am, then it's your own precious time being wasted.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 9th, 2014, 12:44 pm

cbernz wrote:... did you intend to start a discussion on how most people (birders, herpers, governments) use the wrong definition of hunting when deciding what activities to license, or was it to start a discussion on how to actually implement the view that you are advocating?...
Different agencies and people use different definitions for hunting, with people often attempting to cling to self-serving definitions that they have good cause to know are contrary to those employed by the agencies responsible for managing their hunting activity. I don't know about most, but I do know that many agencies define hunting just as I have been here, as a licensable pursuit that is not dependent on a specific end result (be the quarry killed, collected, photographed or whatever). It was my intent to advocate that:

- In the interest of public resource management and conservation being at least partly supported by user fees, such a definition should become more widespread. (And because more support is badly needed for many public resources and user fees are a very fair way to obtain it, you can bet this will happen whether I advocate for it or not).

- In the interest of the herping community, herpers should abide by herp hunting laws. Where such a definition is in effect that means they should buy a herp hunting license even if they only plan to photograph or observe, not kill or collect, the herps they hunt. If they care enough about the resource - and I realize many don't - then I believe they should also at least consider buying a herp hunting license even where such a definition isn't (yet) part of the law and they truly only photograph or observe the herps they hunt. (And you never know, I might reach the occasional person here with such a message now and then, despite the efforts of people such as yourself to obfuscate the issue).

It was not my intent to announce here and now a new, universal and perfect program for the collection of user fees to support the management and conservation of wildlife/wild lands, created single-handedly by yours truly, ready to be implemented as soon as you all say the word. Shocking, eh? What right have I to say anything at all about this stuff, then? :roll:

But I suppose you actually already knew everything I said above, and your latest post is just more of your time-wasting nonsense.

Do you remember this?...
gbin wrote:Turned up in very few minutes via a quick Google search:

From NY's Department of Environmental Conservation:
To hunt - means to pursue, shoot, kill or capture (other than trap) wildlife and includes all lesser acts that disturb or worry wildlife whether or not they result in taking.
From VA's Department of Game and Inland Fisheries:
Hunting and Trapping

The act of or the attempted act of taking, hunting, trapping, pursuing, chasing, shooting, snaring, or netting birds or animals, and assisting any person who is doing the same, regardless of whether birds or animals are actually taken.
From SC's Department of Natural Resources:
Hunting is defined as trying to find, seek, obtain, pursue, or diligently search for game.
There's of course plenty more of the same from elsewhere for people to dig up if they wish. Not that anyone who is adamant about seeing things in a much more self-serving way will be persuaded by such.
It stands in rather stark contrast to this, doesn't it?...
cbernz wrote:... pointing a gun at something you are looking at and pulling the trigger IS HUNTING! AND a form of killing. You are licensed specifically to point a gun at an animal and pull the trigger. Pointing a camera at an animal involves a completely different intent, a completely different outcome, and it's nonsensical to continue to compare the two...
Never mind being persuaded, your determination to cling to your self-serving definition of hunting apparently prevented you from even acknowledging (let alone attempting to deal with) this contrast, didn't it? Just pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it'll go away, eh? :roll:
cbernz wrote:... Most of what you call "nonsense" has been largely squabbling over semantics, and I'm frankly not interested anymore in what is and isn't hunting and why...
No, I'm sure you're not. :lol: Until the next time one of these discussions comes up here and you've a hope that I'm not following the thread, anyway...

Is that what you think the above is, "squabbling over semantics"? Good luck arguing that in court sometime. Agencies define terms like that for a very clear purpose, you know.
cbernz wrote:... I am legitimately curious, however, to know more specifically what you mean by "pay a user fee" or "buy a license." Would you have birders buy a birding license when they bought a field guide or a pair of binoculars?...
Ri-i-ight, because unless I spell out exactly who should pay exactly how much for exactly what (and now apparently exactly when they should do so), covering any and all examples your imagination can possibly come up with, then how dare I advocate for user fees such as hunting licenses for wildlife pursuits? :roll: This, too, isn't a matter of semantic differences between us. It's a matter of your attempting to substitute a bombardment of minutiae for a cogent argument against my position, apparently because you can't come up with one of the latter.
cbernz wrote:... Do you have any thoughts on enforcement, beyond repeating the importance of voluntary compliance?
Obviously agencies also make an attempt at enforcement, both by catching scofflaws red-handed and by building a case against them using more circumstantial evidence (including of their intent). I strongly support such efforts when they're kept in balance with the need (e.g. it seems obvious to me that live herp sting operations waste way too much effort on a genuinely trivial problem), while also recognizing that hunting laws, like a great many others, rely mostly on voluntary compliance. You think maybe I should be able to produce some kind of magic wand of enforcement in order to advocate for user fees such as hunting licenses for wildlife pursuits? Yeah, I suppose that really should be a part of any new, universal and perfect program devoted to same. :roll:
cbernz wrote:... it's your own precious time being wasted.
Understood - and all too well. Fortunately I have a bit of time to waste at present. ;) I'm sure you have more garbage to dump on the discussion, too. What'll it be this time? You want to know whether I'd charge birders different user fees dependent on whether the birds they're pursuing are migrants (which are available to them only part of the year) or year-round residents (which are always available to them), or maybe on whether the birds are waterfowl or terrestrial (because, you know, water covers this much of a state, and land that much)?... :roll:

Gerry

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by gbin » August 10th, 2014, 5:31 pm

gbin wrote:
chris_mcmartin wrote:Using your Cedar Breaks example, their web site says if you enter the park, you pay the fee. There is no distinction for whether you're just passing through, or intend to stop (for ANY reason). Therefore, it sounds like it's a question of enforcement of that rule.
Then the website is either out of date or inaccurate for some other reason (which shouldn't surprise too many people). Someone close to me is currently working there, I was just there, and I can attest to this. If you're just driving down the highway through the park, you don't have to pay the entrance fee. If you're stopping at overlooks - making use of the park rather than just passing through - you do have to pay it. Or you're supposed to, anyway. It relies largely on voluntary compliance, as I mentioned.
In the interest of full disclosure: I followed up on this with my close contact, asking whether anything could be found in writing anywhere at the park to indicate whether the rule is truly as selective as I portrayed it or is merely being selectively enforced as Chris suggested. I didn't feel right asking for an exhaustive search for such, but what was done unfortunately didn't resolve it one way or another. Personal testimony backs me up, whereas information on the park's website backs Chris up. Take your pick, I guess.

Of course, my viewpoint stands as solidly justified even if one simply tosses that example, and there's actually no reason to toss that example whether we're talking about a selective rule or selective enforcement of a rule (as the cause and effect are exactly the same), either. I just wanted to be clear that I can't offer more than personal testimony on this matter.

Gerry

Lloyd Heilbrunn
Posts: 282
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 7:15 pm
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, Fl

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Lloyd Heilbrunn » August 11th, 2014, 9:12 pm

Aaron wrote:Eric, I concur. I was thinking the law said "hunt" from a vehicle, which would require intent. What the law actually says is "locate" which requires no intent.

"(e) A person may not use an artificial light from a motor vehicle in locating, capturing, or attempting to capture a reptile or amphibian under Subsection (c)."

Thank you for providing those links which cleared up my confusion.

The place where my friend was stopped was on River Rd.(FM 170). He was walking at the time and he did have a license and did not try to deny he was hunting.
They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......

User avatar
infidel
Posts: 249
Joined: July 3rd, 2010, 6:24 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by infidel » August 11th, 2014, 9:33 pm

Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:
Aaron wrote:Eric, I concur. I was thinking the law said "hunt" from a vehicle, which would require intent. What the law actually says is "locate" which requires no intent.

"(e) A person may not use an artificial light from a motor vehicle in locating, capturing, or attempting to capture a reptile or amphibian under Subsection (c)."

Thank you for providing those links which cleared up my confusion.

The place where my friend was stopped was on River Rd.(FM 170). He was walking at the time and he did have a license and did not try to deny he was hunting.
They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......
It includes headlights...nothing "reasonable" about it..

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by chris_mcmartin » August 12th, 2014, 3:46 am

infidel wrote:
Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......
It includes headlights...nothing "reasonable" about it..

It depends on which county you're in--the "interpretation/discretion" piece that gets so confusing. Game Wardens in one county may tell you it's OK to road-cruise, find a snake, and take its picture. Drive down the road a few miles and do the same thing in another county and you may get a ticket. I'm speaking only of western TX; back east, from what I've heard, they don't typically seem to care either way.

I need to transcribe the Game Warden presentation from the 2013 Snake Days...it will perhaps shed some light on different perspectives of different wardens. But I have a significant backlog of such projects that need to get finished first!

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3331
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Don Becker » August 12th, 2014, 4:35 am

tanks wrote:Here is the problem, we now have LE making this determination and saying people are lying, maybe some are and maybe some are not??? Now the warden becomes the judge and jury along the roadway for a law that makes criminals out of photographers and people assisting in research projects??
Thats not true. It is no different than a cop ticketing you for speeding. You then make the choice to assume guilt and pay the fine, or you show up for court and fight it. If enough people fought the tickets in court, maybe they would work to change the law. if everyone just pays the fine, then its a good source of revenue with no downside to the law makers.

Lloyd Heilbrunn
Posts: 282
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 7:15 pm
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, Fl

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Lloyd Heilbrunn » August 12th, 2014, 11:52 am

infidel wrote:
Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:
Aaron wrote:Eric, I concur. I was thinking the law said "hunt" from a vehicle, which would require intent. What the law actually says is "locate" which requires no intent.

"(e) A person may not use an artificial light from a motor vehicle in locating, capturing, or attempting to capture a reptile or amphibian under Subsection (c)."

Thank you for providing those links which cleared up my confusion.

The place where my friend was stopped was on River Rd.(FM 170). He was walking at the time and he did have a license and did not try to deny he was hunting.
They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......
It includes headlights...nothing "reasonable" about it..
chris_mcmartin wrote:
infidel wrote:
Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......
It includes headlights...nothing "reasonable" about it..

It depends on which county you're in--the "interpretation/discretion" piece that gets so confusing. Game Wardens in one county may tell you it's OK to road-cruise, find a snake, and take its picture. Drive down the road a few miles and do the same thing in another county and you may get a ticket. I'm speaking only of western TX; back east, from what I've heard, they don't typically seem to care either way.

I need to transcribe the Game Warden presentation from the 2013 Snake Days...it will perhaps shed some light on different perspectives of different wardens. But I have a significant backlog of such projects that need to get finished first!

Someone needs to question the headlight interpretation in front of a judge, then.

User avatar
infidel
Posts: 249
Joined: July 3rd, 2010, 6:24 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by infidel » August 12th, 2014, 1:58 pm

chris_mcmartin wrote:
infidel wrote:
Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:They are not taking the position this includes headlights, are they? Because that is not a reasonable interpretation, IMO. It clearly refers to spotting from a window......
It includes headlights...nothing "reasonable" about it..

It depends on which county you're in--the "interpretation/discretion" piece that gets so confusing. Game Wardens in one county may tell you it's OK to road-cruise, find a snake, and take its picture. Drive down the road a few miles and do the same thing in another county and you may get a ticket. I'm speaking only of western TX; back east, from what I've heard, they don't typically seem to care either way.

I need to transcribe the Game Warden presentation from the 2013 Snake Days...it will perhaps shed some light on different perspectives of different wardens. But I have a significant backlog of such projects that need to get finished first!
The official interpretation is that headlight are included. Wardens are free to "interpret" on a case by case basis anytime they want. Fortunately, most of the Wardens I know are damn good people and unless you jump out of the car acting like a [email protected]#$, as long as you have a license and vest and you are taking pictures, you'd probably be fine. They have a job to do. I don't blame the Warden on the side of the road for any of this. Like Chris said in his post, the warden he's talking to is a herper and is probably sympathetic to all this BUT he has a job to do. If people don't like it, get the law changed, don't blame the warden.

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 318
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by lateralis » August 13th, 2014, 6:06 pm

I don't have time to read through it all so I do not know if the below point was expanded upon...
Bird watching & playing a tape or "pishing" at birds is a much better candidate activity for criminal-tax consequence purposes ... now dang it where did that baldheaded potatoebugg go? : }
I also felt that this topic was more analogous and much more of an "apples to apples" case with photographing reptiles and amphibians...one could say it was more invasive than herping for several reasons.

1. I have seen birders set up as many as 12 feeders in their campsites to photograph hummingbirds and other neotropical migrants. My first question would be is the mixture deemed safe for wildlife? And is feeding wildlife now allowed?

2. Hummingbirds typically return to the same areas year after year to feed on certain flowering plants and luring them to feeders is disrupting that behavior (harassment and perhaps making them more dependent upon humans?).

3. Any raptor that feeds on birds could have a field day once it became wise to the situation (causing predation where predation would not normally occur).

23 years ago I asked a warden in Organ Pipe NM if I could look for snakes and he said "no" but when I asked if I could look for other wildlife he said "yes" :crazyeyes: :lol: :crazyeyes: :? :crazyeyes:

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Brian Hubbs » August 13th, 2014, 11:41 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank you for starting this informative post Chris, but I think everyone needs to pay attention to the following points:

1) If you disagree with the current law, then work to change it or don't go to Texas. I agree with Bob...I don't go, unless it's to photograph turtles.
2) Find other areas to herp outside of west Texas-ain't nobody looking for you anywhere else.
3) Remember, herping during the daytime does not draw attention to you. I found a Grayband under a rock once in the spring.
4) Make friends with the Ewings and Bush's. They might not be able to help change the law, but I hear they throw some good parties.
5) Texas does not care about wildlife unless it can be eaten or shot.
6) Texas is run by rich oil and cattle people. They don't know anything about herps because they cannot be eaten or shot (except for rattlesnakes).
7) If you go to Texas, make friends with someone named Bubba or Billy Bob.
8) Texas is America's rectum. Ain't nowhere to go from Texas except Mexico, and we know what a sh*thole that is...
9) I'm glad I got west Texas out of my system when it was still a reasonable place to go. I miss Sanderson and Warden Fernando. But, I like Nebraska now. It's the new frontier.

:o

Nebraska Pale Milk

Image

User avatar
infidel
Posts: 249
Joined: July 3rd, 2010, 6:24 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by infidel » August 14th, 2014, 8:39 am

Brian Hubbs wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank you for starting this informative post Chris, but I think everyone needs to pay attention to the following points:

1) If you disagree with the current law, then work to change it or don't go to Texas. I agree with Bob...I don't go, unless it's to photograph turtles.
2) Find other areas to herp outside of west Texas-ain't nobody looking for you anywhere else.
3) Remember, herping during the daytime does not draw attention to you. I found a Grayband under a rock once in the spring.
4) Make friends with the Ewings and Bush's. They might not be able to help change the law, but I hear they throw some good parties.
5) Texas does not care about wildlife unless it can be eaten or shot.
6) Texas is run by rich oil and cattle people. They don't know anything about herps because they cannot be eaten or shot (except for rattlesnakes).
7) If you go to Texas, make friends with someone named Bubba or Billy Bob.
8) Texas is America's rectum. Ain't nowhere to go from Texas except Mexico, and we know what a sh*thole that is...
9) I'm glad I got west Texas out of my system when it was still a reasonable place to go. I miss Sanderson and Warden Fernando. But, I like Nebraska now. It's the new frontier.

:o

Nebraska Pale Milk

Image
Isn't Nebraska America's "Corn Hole" ?
Image
Just sayin...

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Brian Hubbs » August 14th, 2014, 8:51 am

Heh, heh, he said "Corn Hole" ...Heh, heh...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

_______________________________
I was posting here when you were in diapers!

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Game Warden Feedback (TX Specifically)

Post by Fundad » August 14th, 2014, 9:51 am

For me personally I don't go to W. Texas, because of the stupid law, nor do I go to Washington, Oregon etc because of their stupid laws..

I may visit once, but I won't be spending money in those places consistently, unless they change the law, which seems doubtful at this point.

Fundad

Post Reply